We’d like to know a bit more about you, so we can come to your place while you’re asleep and rifle through your fridge for premium cold cuts. No, seriously, we’d be grateful if you complete the survey linked below to give us some insight into who listens to us. Although we won’t turn down prosciutto, if you have it.
This week’s episode covers three big questions. (1) How big of a deal is the decision in Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Instit.(can Ohio purge old voter rolls, (2) How big of a deal is the decision in McCoy v. Louisiana (can a criminal attorney admit guilt over a defendant’s objection), and (3) What’s a big deal when it comes to the Supreme Court (you know, like what is a “big deal” exactly??) Nazim’s metaphor game is particularly strong in this one btw. Law starts at (07:14).
This week’s episode covers the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case which balanced the value of anti-discrimination statutes against the religious protections of the First Amendment to figure a compromise that likely everyone hates. Law starts at (04:37)
This week’s episode covers the recent decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which can be more aptly stated as Overly Power Arbitration Act v. Sensible Worker’s Rights Requests. Brett and Nazim break down the basis for the decision, debate judicial activism, and talk about why Weezer sucks. Law starts at (05:14).
This week’s episode covers the improbable case of Christie v. NCAA, where New Jersey’s second bite at legalizing State gambling actually worked, and now Federal Gambling laws are unconstitutional. Brett and Nazim celebrate this brand new world by setting odds for one-on-one fights between Supreme Court Justices. Law starts at (04:15), but it takes a while to get focused.
Brett and Nazim celebrate their 200th episode (!!!) the only way they know how, by talking about food for way too long, going on a weird tangent about the Mueller investigation that dovetails into the shady side of corporate law, and finally landing on Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case that asks the Supreme Court to gauge how prejudiced the President is allowed to be before we do anything about it. Law starts at (11:50).
This week’s episode covers judges, and more specifically judicial mistakes currently before the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss Rosales-Mireles v. U.S, which basically covers how the Court should approach math problems, and Dalmazzi v. U.S., which discusses the current applicability of Civil War military appointment statutes. Law starts at (04:30).
This week’s episode covers oral arguments and recent decisions with varying degrees of stakes. Brett and Nazim discuss Abbott v. Perez (which might decide the fate of modern democracy) Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC (which may facilitate terrorism), SAS Institute v. Matal (which deals with paperwork), and Trump v. Hawaii (which has something to do with the President). Law starts at (04:18).
Enclosed are results follows SAS Intitute and Jesner. We did not have Dimaya on the ballot, so that did not count. From what I have read from my sources (the Scotusblog twitter account), results will begin again May 15 and then come fast and furious.
170 Holy shit, my friend Ray
165 Hollywood Austin
135 DC Alyssa
125 Vito
Adam in Rodchester
115 Brian S.
110 Mitchel
Coridan the Arch-Villain
105 Will P.
100 Brett
Ken H.
95 Nazim
Dan H.
90 Steven from Houston
Andy the Wholeman
KC (“the Kid”)
85 Penni
Anthony from Georgia
Tony C.
80 Daniela
Max “Number 2”
75 Big Bears Dad
70 Arturo
Neil R.
Fabian
Todd S.
Spencer
“Doing It Wrong”
60 LA Scott
Silvia
55 C3PO
P Dub
Kyle WM
45 Emma
Prosecutor John
My dude keanuthon
Lane from Philadelphia
40 Michigan Drew
Cade
James N
30 ZLM
KJ
Denver Brad
Lauren from Baltimore
25 Zoe
Wayned
Sarah Corp.
Girl Carew
15 Victor
JB in ME
Jocelyn
Shannon
Kevin, aka Havertown’s worst gambler
David from ATL
0 Dan H.
Nora
Brandon N.
Young Maldy
Cam from Phoenix
CB
JB94
A few cases we covered last month are still undecided, but we don’t know for how long. Get your ballots in quick. Here is the ballot. You know what to do.
This week’s episode covers two recent decisions by the Court, including Microsoft v. U.S. (where the Court determined the dispute was moot after passage of the CLOUD Act), and Dimaya v. Sessions (where the Court invalidated the Immigrant Removal Act on grounds of vagueness under the Due Process Clause). Law starts at (08:48), but you’d be missing some pretty dope NASA talk.
